Content
Members Present: Bradshaw, Button, Combs, Cressler, Gay, Gonzales, Hanrahan, Heng-Moss, Henson, Jemkur, Mueller, Sharif, Tschetter, Van Den Wymelenberg
Members Absent: Clarke, Eklund, Nelson
Guests:
Note: These are not verbatim minutes. This is a summary of the discussions at the Academic Planning Committee meeting as corrected by those participating.
1.0 Call
Hanrahan called the meeting to order at 3:01 p.m.
2.0 Approval of April 8, 2026 Minutes
Button noted that he had made some minor changes and there was no further discussion on the minutes. Minutes were then approved by acclamation.
3.0 Review of Nutrition and Health Sciences APR (Cressler)
Cressler stated that the only dean’s report received was from the College of Education and Human Sciences, despite the program being part of both that college and IANR. Button stated that he would think that there would be some input from IANR. Heng-Moss noted that a decision may have been made agreeing that the IANR deans’ report would not be necessary, but she stated that she would follow up with AVC Bishop regarding expectations for responses from deans of both relevant colleges. Cressler reported that the chair of the department thought it would be useful to have feedback and support from the relative parties. He stated that this is more of an update and he would give the full report on the APR at a future meeting.
4.0 Proposal to Delete the Insect Science BS
Hanrahan noted it appears that the program is being eliminated due to low enrollments but asked if the students will be able to complete their degree. He pointed out that no faculty members will be lost with the deletion of this program. Bradshaw pointed out that elimination of the degree is because it failed to meet the CCPSE thresholds so there was not much leeway with it. He stated that there might be future opportunities to have a similar program in the new school, but it is still too early in the merger process to consider this. Heng-Moss reported that the program was flagged by the CCPSE when Interim Chancellor Ankerson was EVC. She pointed out that faculty from both disciplines in the merged school will need to feel they are contributing together to develop a program.
Bradshaw stated that the merger of Entomology and Plant Pathology is still working on learning what each program does and work is progressing to determine who they will be as a new school.
Hanrahan asked if there was approval for deletion of the program. The APC approved unanimously the proposal for deletion.
5.0 Pillar 5: Extraordinary Stewardship and Effectiveness
The APC discussed feedback on Pillar 5 of the strategic plan, and there were particular concerns about the wording "shift from do more with less to do with excellence," which was seen as offensive and potentially misleading. Hanrahan suggested rephrasing it to focus on maintaining or increasing excellence rather than implying current lack of excellence. The discussion also covered operational inefficiencies affecting faculty and staff, including challenges with hiring processes, budget transparency, and administrative barriers. Participants identified specific issues such as lack of phones in offices, complicated student registration processes, and budget transparency problems, with some noting disparities in faculty cuts across different colleges.
University Strategic Priorities Discussion
Hanrahan discussed the importance of reordering priorities in the university's strategic document, suggesting that mission values should be prioritized over return on investment (ROI). He proposed changing the focus from ROI to "return on impact and investments" to better capture the university's broader mission. Gay also addressed the concept of continuous improvement, suggesting it should empower faculty and students to provide alternative solutions and offering the example of using AI to streamline administrative processes like Concur. The discussion touched on the need for a more responsive budget model that could better allocate resources to areas of growth and address compliance and risk management challenges.
Budget Transparency and Accountability Alignment
Hanrahan, Van Den Wymelenberg, and Gay discussed the importance of aligning incentives with accountability and resource allocation, emphasizing the need for transparency and clear communication regarding budget decisions, particularly regarding athletics and resource distribution across campuses. Gay suggested that the chancellor should present a simple and understandable budget explanation to faculty, addressing concerns about resource allocation and ensuring that promised incentives are delivered. Sharif also questioned the feasibility of completely removing all barriers, suggesting that capacity constraints may limit full implementation of some initiatives.
Efficiency Measures and Transparency
The discussion focused on efficiency measures and their correlation with outcomes, with Professor Combs emphasizing the need for transparency and understanding in decision-making processes. Button highlighted several barriers to efficiency, including travel, procurement, and hiring, noting that many of these are controlled by the system but can still be influenced. The conversation also touched on concerns about spending on consultants and the importance of stewardship in managing public funds. Faculty members expressed a desire for more transparent and collaborative dialogue with administration, while also discussing the challenges of balancing urgency with quality in deliverables.
Campus Budget and Faculty Engagement
The meeting focused on budget discussions and faculty engagement across campus. Heng-Moss reported on widespread faculty consultation efforts, including meetings with over 400 people across different locations, where discussions centered on metrics mapping and connecting strategic plans to budget reduction requirements. The group discussed concerns about faculty morale and uncertainty about future budget cuts, with participants expressing the need for stability and revenue generation opportunities. The meeting also covered Faculty Senate matters, including discussions about APC representation and the status of a proposed Budget Committee, though the latter remains conceptual due to concerns about duplication of work and lack of transparency in budget details. The conversation concluded with a discussion about the need for more transparent budget reporting, including information about foundation funds and department-level financial data.
The meeting adjourned at 4:36 p.m. The next meeting of the APC will be on Wednesday, May 13, 2026. The minutes are respectfully submitted by Karen Griffin, Coordinator.